The Writer’s Vision – Peter Handke’s Afternoon of a Writer

Peter Handke’s Afternoon of a Writer (Nachmittag eines Schriftstellers) is my fourth work by the controversial Austrian Nobel laureate and the second which I have succeeded in squeezing a blog post out of, after his Goalie’s Anxiety at the Penalty Kick. I certainly don’t return to Handke because I enjoy reading him. Rather, I keep giving in to the aura of importance created by his prizes and his praises, in particular the curious assertion by native speakers, one I am unable to verify although I am reading in the original German, that Handke was one of a few writers who rescued the German language from the degradation that Nazism forced upon it. What I can say, and what was obvious at once with The Goalie’s Anxiety, is that Handke created what felt like a new way of writing about subjective experience, about consciousness, that was neither free indirect discourse nor the full interiority of the first person, stream-of-consciousness.

In The Goalie’s Anxiety Handke used this approach to question and probe the state of mind of a chance murderer as he increasingly lost touch with the world. In Afternoon of a Writer, by contrast, Handke represents the state of mind of a writer, who can stand in for perhaps any artist, as they go about their day. The morning’s work of creating is over, and now is time for the living. But living, for an artist, (all of this post must be silently caveated by saying this applies to some, not all creatives), is not the same as it is for the rest of us. For an artist, their subjectivity is changed, their living is charged and crackling with the absorption of material and impressions. Handke, particularly through his language, shows the full intensity of this subjectivity in his short novel as his writer goes for a walk.

It is on this language that I want to focus today, because language is the centre of this work, and observing its effects is the main source of excitement as we read. But there is also a space for judgement too. As we observe the writer and his consciousness it is impossible to avoid judging him, just as he judges his own self and relationship with the world. But to get to that judgement one must first make it through the language and what it does.

Plot

A writer finishes his writing for the day and goes for a walk. (Welcome to the world of Peter Handke.)

Clarity and Details

Perhaps it is best to begin with a paragraph, from when the writer enters his garden:

Despite the winter it still flowered, here and there, in his surroundings. It was precisely from their littleness and isolation that the campions, the daisies, the buttercups and the dead-nettles brought life to the carefully dug landscape. The buttercups, shining like enamel, for a moment even deceived him into believing he saw some sunshine. In the crown of an apple tree, eaten up by birds, there still hung a few fruits, their flesh likely frozen to glass. The last few leaves, heavy with hoar frost, fell, one after the other, almost vertically, with a crackle. The catkins were colourless, as if lamed by the cold. On the picket fence and next to the house door there was even a bluebell, frost blue.

Trotz des Winters blühte es noch hier und da in dem Umkreis. Gerade in ihrer Kleinheit und Vereinzelung belebten die Lichtnelken, die Gänseblümchen, die Hahnenfüße und die Taubnessellippen das starr gerippte Gelände. Die emailleglänzenden Hahnenfußkelche täuschten für Augenblicke sogar einen Sonneschein vor. In der Krone des einen Apfelbaums, von Vögeln angefressen, hingen noch einige Früchte, das Fleisch wohl glasig gefroren. Die letzten Blätter, beschwert vom Reif, stürzten eins dem andern zu Boden, fast senkrecht, mit einem Krachen. Die Haselkätzchen waren farblos, wie gekrümmt von der Kälte. Am Palisadenzaun und neben der Haustür stand je eine Glockenblume, frostblau.

Once, when I was at school, an English teacher I much admired made us do a test. We had to identify, from pictures, about twenty different common plants in our surroundings – I mean things like oaks, elms, birches. I think the high score was about seven. Today I would be no better, but I have always found it funny that I can name more plants or birds or fish in German or Russian than I could ever identify with my own eyes. The knowledge of the natural world that is needed to give specificity to our impressions is increasingly absent among us, but not with Handke’s writer, who pins down each of the flowers’ names. There’s also a richness to them that the English cannot quite convey, though my own attempt could be improved. Daisies are literally “little geese flowers”, buttercups are “hen feet”, nettles echo the word “Taube”, for a dove, while catkins at least manage to carry over the association to English. In short, the flowers are not static, but by Handke’s choice, perhaps, are each associated with living animals, giving them still further liveliness. We can almost see the writer (and his author) noticing this and smiling to himself.

The leaves falling – how clear this is, how precise, how mechanically, the writer notices them! First – that there are not many leaves left, then, the hoarfrost, then the order of falling, then the way they fall, and finally the sound. In short, he captures the whole thing, a series of impressions forming a whole. Then we end with a single word in German, “frostblau”. It sounds like a breath on a wintry afternoon with its open vowel ending. Its purpose again is to show the artistic vision focusing in. A bluebell’s colour is obvious, known, in its name. But the writer must be clearer than that, must note to himself exactly what the right word is – and that is precisely why that word is there, the follow up that caps the impression. It confirms that he knows how to look.

We can notice another characteristic element of Handke’s style – the relative absence of images that are not the things present. In a story, a writer has to decide whether to see what is there, or what is not. And here Handke has the writer seeing what is before him, yet with just a hint of looking beyond. The glassy apples are an example – it’s like the beginning of an image, the first thought before its elaboration. The German is also softer than my rendering. “Frozen glassily” is softer than “frozen to glass” or even “like glass” because it keeps the wordcount low and lets us pass by, barely registering it. Instead, we notice the image, the apple itself. It’s about prioritisation, framing.

This is a section of Afternoon of a Writer from before the man begins his walk. It hangs on the page, surrounded by white space. It is a noticing, a thing of beauty to me, a word person. It is not merely the background to some other impression or emotion, or that concealed boast of botanical erudition that I remember feeling while reading someone like A.S. Byatt – here, this noticing is all there is. What is normally the background has become the foreground, even if one day, perhaps in the writer’s work, it will need to move back into the background once again. We are simply made to see.

Imagine

The novel is so rich with details, with noticings, that it is almost a shame to move on. Besides noticing, besides detail after detail, about light, about eyes, about landscape, we also see another aspect of the artistic vision, when the man imagines, rather than merely seeing. The autobahn suddenly causes him to feel, for a moment, “a vibration in his arms, as if he were sitting with the driver in the cabin” of a truck. He then sees a stationary train, and seems, instantaneously, to create characters from afar. He imagines how “a child’s hand searched for the hand of an adult.” He sees the waiter, the dishwasher, each with their actions and their distinct being. And all of this from just a “Fernbild[]” – a distant image. 

We learn very little about the writer’s work in Afternoon of a Writer, but one of the few things we learn is that it is set in the summer. At another moment, looking at some birds, his mind shifts from the detail into the imagination, and then into the work. We observe this process again, directly, in the text:

“Motionlessly sat the tiny birds up in the branches, just like the crows in the crown of the next tree along, and the even the gulls, otherwise so unruly, sat motionless upon the railings of the bridge. It was as if snow were falling upon them all, even though there were no flakes in sight. And just here, at this living image with the rain of wings, hardly noticeable, the gaps of the beaks as they opened, with the eyes like little dots, there arose before the observer that summer landscape where the story played out which he was writing at that moment.”

The first sentence gives us the real, with the second we begin to see the artistic mind look beyond the real, and with the third we arrive at the destination – the image of the story, entirely different from what he is seeing. In this way we see the process of creation yet again.

To be a successfully writer, Handke might argue here, we play many different roles. Hence the use of that word “Beobachter” (observer) instead of the “Schriftsteller” (writer) of the novel’s title.  At another point he is the “Beschatter”, or shadower. One thing that I have just noticed as I write this is these two examples contain the passive “be” prefix in German. Compared to the activity of writer, they suggest a much more receptive role. This is appropriate. If the novel begins with the man having finished his writing, for the rest of it he is primarily receiving, experiencing. At one point he grows anxious while reading the newspaper because he feels it is stopping him from thinking. Instead, he wants perhaps to be that transparent eyeball which Emerson described in his essay “Nature”. He takes things in and reflects while we watch.

Hence the use of questions in the novel. They are not the fake questions of a stream of consciousness, but the questions we can imagine the artist asking themselves as they reflect: “Wasn’t it curious that it was only during the hours of writing that his living space could lose its boundaries in this way?” It’s a note to self we are privileged to see, but nothing more. It may have a future use, but we will not be present to see it.

Judgement

The one role that the writer does not give himself directly in the text is “mad”, but it is not so far away from his experience for him to be entirely safe from it. For just as the writer experiences the world with the aim of gathering material, of making it “beschreiblich” (describable), we can also see him facing other consequences of that particular tuning. Early on, and in a beautiful (in the original) phrase about his hopes for his writing, he thinks “the shadows of a bird twitching over the wall should, instead of distracting him, accompany the text and make it transparent.” The word “accompany” is the one to focus on. For we soon notice that the writer has no family except a cat, and no real social life to speak of. He believes, indeed, that he cannot truly connect with others anymore. Stopping in a pub, the people he meets are reduced to their artistic use – “turns of phrase, exclamations, gestures and cadences.”

In short, we could say he has made himself stunted, stranded. He can create, we must assume, and he can absorb from the world far more than most of us can. Yet for all that richness, what poverty! To gain every shade of green he has eliminated all red from his world. He refuses to go onto his own balcony except to do the washing because the impression of the view is too overwhelming. When he goes for a walk he feels no “joy” until he has placed his movements within a plan. Handke is not a writer for judgements, but it is probably telling that the novel ends with the word “Schauder” – awe. “He wondered at himself, near to a long-forgotten awe.” Such a word redeems him, even if it does not do so to us. Just as with earlier use of the word “entrücken” (translate), in the biblical sense of going from earth or hell to heaven, we have a sense that we ought not judge him. His life is different, higher, even if it seems strange to us. He, himself, appears happy – he is at work.

Certainly, I can sit here in judgement, but I am jealous really. I mentioned a few posts ago that I wanted to start carrying around a notebook precisely for such noticings – I need to learn to experience the world around me in the way the writer does here. While I may not wish for myself the isolation this writer has, (at least on a full time basis), there’s no denying that this novel portrays a way of life that is far closer to what is necessary for the kind of art I might want to make than the way of life I currently lead. And what is hardest to avoid is the sheer clarity of Handke’s work as it describes that way of life. We spend the novel standing next to the writer as he perceives. We observe his observations. We see exactly what he sees, how he processes his material and reflects upon it, even the questions he asks. In short, and probably far better than any guidebook, Afternoon of a Writer is a guide to precisely that – being a writer, being in the world and finding in it what you need to create.

I would like to be more critical, but I can’t. I don’t enjoy reading Handke. Yet each time I return I learn something I seriously think no other writer would be able to teach me. Some of it can only be done in German, of course. His use of separable verbs (especially the word “fort” for a continuing indicated only at the end of the sentence) to freeze an image for an extended moment of observation, or his long adjectival phrases which maintain the connection between a thing and its surroundings thanks to forgoing commas in a way that is difficult in English, for example. But the rest – the details, the details, all of the wonderful details – we can take away, whoever we are, whatever language we write in. I don’t want to read more, but I know I must. He surely is one of the greats.

Giovanni’s Room – James Baldwin

Truth and self-deception are topics that are never far from literature’s pages. The omission in speech of the facts of the heart, or else the failure to acknowledge them even within one’s own soul, is often the chute down which tragedy falls our lives. Yet in a way, I find books about authenticity harder and harder to believe the closer their settings get to our own time. In life, by which I mean within that vague lumpy western collective population I have to refer to here, it has become boringly easy to tell the truth. Marriages, that great source of anguished self-deception, are no longer arranged, nor are the consequences of divorce as total and obliterating as they were in the days of Anna Karenina or Effi Briest. At an art book fair in Düsseldorf at the weekend, I was surrounded by people who seemed to be being their authentic selves – making bizarre but personal images, wearing silly clothes, having the kind of hairstyles my girlfriend considers hot and my mother considers ghastly.

I wondered, perhaps, whether many of us really now really know inauthenticity well enough to articulate it. If I were to speak of my own case, born into reasonably great financial and social privilege but failing either to commit to being a writer to the full extent of my powers and energies or to commit to making a lot of money and influence as a lawyer or what-have-you by instead choosing a muddly middle ground in a relaxing, reasonably well paying corporate career where I have an excellent work-life balance and time each day to write a few pages – if I talked about this, about being dishonest to both my calling and my familial obligations, well then I would rightly make myself the subject of ridicule and only with great luck would I make a half-decent novel.

The overwhelming advantage and interest to me of writers whose identity conflicted with the society of their time is that they felt questions of authenticity with the full force they ought perhaps to have for us all. There’s Walt Whitman, at times my favourite poet – this man of joy thinly papering over his despair at having to transfer much of his love for men into love for man; then there is E.M. Forster, that supreme writer of the “muddle” of our hearts; and to that list I today add James Baldwin, long ago recommended to me, a gay Black American writer who spoke forcefully for rights and acceptance for himself and for others. I have begun my acquaintance with him through Giovanni’s Room, a novel of self-deception and tragedy in a Paris of the 1950s that is free enough for its main character to find love, but not free enough for him to be willing to admit it.

We start at the end, with the American David standing alone in the house in southern France that he and his girlfriend (fiancée) had rented together. He tells us that she is already on a ship back to the United States. As for Giovanni, this other person with a claim upon David’s heart, this is his last morning alive. The guillotine awaits him. While Giovanni’s Room holds some information back, such as the nature of Giovanni’s crime, the broad contours of its plot – that a man loves a man and yet cannot commit to him, destroying their relationship – are no mystery, even to a reader that has ducked past the book’s back cover. Such an approach, and the way that the narrative is told by David as he looks back upon the wreck of his life, lends the text a fatalistic, determined atmosphere.

This is assuredly deliberate. Looking at Giovanni’s Room as a whole, a certain link becomes apparent between its images and ideas – or rather, a particular opposition. One of movement versus standing still. I have to avoid the temptation to write “stasis”, because Baldwin’s lack of movement is more nuanced than that word would imply. The same thing keeps me from writing “flight”, though this is how David – an American who has left his homeland – describes his own life. Instead, using this simple binary, Baldwin’s other images and ideas, whether the sea, or acting, or time itself, are reflected and refracted, over and over.

But first I should mention the plot. How Hella, David’s girlfriend, had gone away to Spain to think about whether to marry him, while he stayed on in Paris. How Jacques, a wealthy businessman, and David had gone drinking to a bar owned by the Frenchman Guillaume, and how there the bartender was a handsome Italian, Giovanni. How with the same inevitability of the text, Giovanni and David begin a passionate affair that cannot last. (They acknowledge this inevitability too, in word if not in fact). How in the end, Hella returns, and sees Giovanni, and eventually discovers the nature of his relationship with David.

Within this cast we already have one of the markers of a lack of movement – reflections. At several points in the story David is confronted with his reflection as he cleans the house in preparation for his departure in the morning, and from that reflection he quite literally flees. Movement makes the water ripple, the image unrecognisable. Guillaume and Jacques, older gay men, are a kind of grotesque mirror of Giovanni and David. They chase after young men, but their lives are empty of love. Guillaume, the last member of an ancient family, has through his failure to sire an heir become a kind of image of David’s own anxieties over his need to create a family. Jacques can hardly admit his sexuality, even as he tries to flirt with David. The comparison between these young and older men becomes starker once David has broken off with Giovanni, for the latter ends up falling in with Jacques, and thereby begins to adopt “a fairy’s mannerisms”, the same as him. Still another reflection is between Hella and Giovanni – both offering certain images of the future. One respectable, the other true. David sees himself, and the reader sees other reflections, but what we notice each time is his refusal to face those reflections. Self-deception only works if you don’t stand still long enough for the self to notice.

Self-deception births flight – “by not looking at the universe, by not looking at myself, by remaining, in effect, in constant motion.” Two images best characterise David’s vision of the alternative, of staying still – a cave and a room. After David’s first sexual experience with a man, he runs from the house in horror: “That body suddenly seemed the black opening of a cavern in which I would be tortured till madness came, in which I would lose my manhood.” “Seemed” – while this word is necessary for a simile, it also contains uncertainty – David doesn’t know how things will be. In the same way, even “opening” hints at something positive: potentiality rather than any negative. Even leaving aside the “manhood” topic for now, the striking thing about this image is not just its power as an image – because it comes in the text suddenly and bearing horror – but also that this image undermines itself. David does not just tell the readers how he thinks he feels, he also, crucially and accidentally, reveals his doubts about those very feelings.

Then there is the room. Giovanni lives outside of the Paris centre, alone, in a small room. Like the cave, the room’s symbolic meanings are multiple. As the doors close for Giovanni and David’s first night together, it is clearly a place of lust and freedom – its very darkness becomes a source of intimacy and desire. It takes one out of the world, distorting time – David feels the need to remind the reader throughout the story that “I did not really stay there very long”. His text, naturally, tells another tale – Hella, the woman he attempts to persuade himself he loves, is barely on the page until the end. Is time to be measured by the days we are truly alive, or just those where all our organs are functioning? David might think it is the latter, but his narration tells us the former.

When David decides to view the room negatively, it becomes so – dirty, overcrowded with rubbish, with peeling wallpaper, and so on. He tries to make himself view it as a site of constraint, rather than of freedom. Unfortunately for him, Giovanni’s later attempts to renovate the place and make it more homely by adding a bookcase mean that even this critical view fails to convince the reader. David calls it “some weird idea”, but at this point the bookcase becomes a reminder Giovanni’s commitment to the relationship that is contrasted harshly with David’s own lack of investment, his constant backward movement.

Few people, however, come out of Giovanni’s Room well or even looking well. Within its pages, it’s a profoundly pessimistic book. The wreck of David’s life at its end is monumental. What hurts, as a reader, is the extent of his self-knowledge. He knows perfectly well how he deludes himself, but that cannot change the past or offer much hope for the future. The affirmations we get, “With everything in me screaming No! yet the sum of me sighed Yes”, are always tempered by the commitment failures that follow.

David surrenders each time only to retreat later. His assertions of a desire for normality are brilliantly false, paper-thin. “I wanted children. I wanted to be inside again, with the light and safety, with my manhood unquestioned, watching my woman put my children to bed.” Really what David wants is a state of innocence that he knows is impossible – a state of things, rather than the concreteness of the children or wife. “Watching”, “unquestioned” – he wants to be able to view his life without shame. But whoever wanted children or a wife rightly or truly only because of the image they would confer? There is also the implicit egotism of that longing – “my” is repeated three times in a single sentence. (Perhaps this also reflects a fear of Giovanni’s equality to him, a desire for control he cannot have with the man). In short, David’s failure to commit is as painful as Giovanni’s own tragedy. That second man, at least, cannot be faulted for his emotions or his earnestness.

Among the characters it is Hella, David’s fiancée, who has the most interesting trajectory, because it contrasts with all the others so clearly. She ends the novel, we learn at its beginning, on a ship back towards her own country. Like David, like all of the other characters, she is acting throughout, putting on a performance for the people around her. In her case, she has pretended to the bohemianism and libertarianism of Paris. Yet upon returning from Spain, she discovers that in reality “I’m not really the emancipated girl I try to be at all. I guess I just want a man to come home to me every night. I want to be able to sleep with a man without being afraid he’s going to knock me up. Hell, I want to be knocked up.” The characters that Giovanni’s Room destroys – David, Giovanni, Guillaume and Jacques – are all given desires that the world they live in will not tolerate seeing in the open. Only the woman, whose true wish (perhaps) is obliterating conventionality, is given the chance not only to know herself, but to be able to choose that life. None of the others, faced with an oppressive society and personal weakness, get anywhere close to this.

In all this and in the cyclicity of the story – with a narrator looking back upon a failed life and an ending returning us to the winter season that marked its beginning – Giovanni’s Room is profoundly pessimistic in temperament. There is no happy ending, of the sort that (admittedly) hurt Forster’s Maurice in my eyes. Instead, the forces to conform are triumphant. Yet by bringing us to face this desolation, the book instead serves that noble goal – that of illuminating all the more brightly the horror of the inauthentically lived life, and the terrible pressures to conform placed upon anyone whose desires or identity lie beyond the “normal” world. Giovanni’s Room is a wonderfully moral book, a profoundly serious one, and that is quite enough.

Elif Batuman – The Idiot

I bought Elif Batuman’s The Idiot because I wanted to read a contemporary reimagining of Dostoevsky’s Idiot, which I suppose makes me the idiot on this particular occasion, since the connection to Dostoevsky is tenuous. Instead, it’s a novel about a naïve student on her first year at Harvard who falls in love and spends the summer in Hungary. It’s a novel with ideas, if not quite a novel of ideas. Selin, the protagonist, studies things like linguistics and the philosophy of language, and reads books like The Magic Mountain, and has an opinion on Dostoevsky. However, on the level of language this is more akin to Sally Rooney than Mann or the Russian. It’s all light and easy sentences, dialogue smooth as someone letting a slinky slide between two outstretched arms, and disorganised observations of things in rooms. It’s real in the way reality TV is real – it is existence absent of any redeeming light.

One of the criticisms I might make of it is that so much of its four hundred, easy-to-read pages, feels meaningless. The things caught in our narrator’s gaze often have neither narrative nor thematic relevance; their purpose is to make reality feel real, but often they don’t even seem to do that. The interactions between characters are regularly similarly lightweight. Yet the novel as a whole might make for itself the defence that it is actually serious about meaning, that such scenes are essential to its construction, that I am the one misunderstanding it. For indeed, being a work about language, love, and communication, it tries to treat seriously the shifting presence and absence of meaning in our day-to-day lives. Perhaps. The fact that I sit here writing this suggests maybe it’s a case worth making.

The Idiot begins in 1995 with Turkish-American Selin arriving at Harvard to begin her undergraduate studies. She meets her roommates and her classmates. She majors in linguistics and studies things in the philosophy and psychology of language. She volunteers a little of her time to teach maths and English as a second language, largely without success. She goes to the odd party but barely drinks and certainly does nothing sexual. There are many characters who drift in and out, largely undifferentiated, but there are two that are important – Ivan, an older Hungarian man Selin meets during Russian class, and Svetlana, a Serbian girl from the same class. Ivan provides a kind of love interest for Selin, while Svetlana is a kind of worldly motherly figure for her. In the summer break Selin goes to Paris with Svetlana, and from there on to Hungary, where she is to teach English to some Hungarian village children.

It makes sense to start with language, since these are the ideas that underpin the novel as a whole. With her linguistics studies, Selin tries to make sense of language itself by considering how language could be explained to Martians, or by them to us. “Supposing we went to Mars and the Martians said “gavagai” every time a rabbit ran by”, it would not be possible to know whether this referred to running, or rabbits, or something else entirely. Selin finds this depressing, as this early introduction to communication seems to suggest we cannot communicate, that meaning is trapped inside of us, never to get out. Naturally, this is an introductory class, so the fact that Selin can’t get anywhere towards solving this problem is one of those examples where a text seems to provide a problem that contains the seeds of its own later dissolution. (She should keep studying as it’s obvious she does not have the full picture yet).

The novel also challenges this “communication doesn’t work” idea through a short story for Russian learners whose chapters are scattered throughout its pages. This tells of a girl called Nina who goes to Siberia after the man she loves disappears, but one of its quirks is that the text is simplified to focus on the grammatical structures the learners are currently focusing on, such as a particular grammatical case. While the story contains plenty of miscommunications, the fact that a coherent narrative can be produced even with such obvious linguistic limitations rather suggests that it is people who are failing to communicate, rather than language itself. In other words, meaning’s general transferability is not precluded by language. Rather, it is people who are the problem. I found this a little unsatisfying – The Idiot introduces a problem only to deny it is one.

This sense that people are the problem is one we might have picked up on from the novel’s title, of course. Selin is naïve – in this she has something in common with Prince Myshkin. Since she is naïve and innocent she struggles with the articulation of her own emotions towards Ivan, turning from speech to lengthy emails that might work if they were not themselves, inevitably, an exercise in avoiding communication – they talk indirectly, and so do not reach the destination:

“Dear Selin, would you trade wine and cheese for vodka and pickles? Why does a Greek hero have to fight his fate? Are dice a lethal weapon?  Is there any way to escape the triviality-dungeon of conversations? Why did you stop coming to math?”

The above is one of Ivan’s, though Selin’s are no better. At times they also use Russian, a language neither of them knows well, which naturally enough does not help either. These are two people failing language. This is a point stressed when Selin is in rural Hungary teaching English, and trying and failing to fight a local fellow-teacher who insists one pronouncing all the silent vowels in English. “One”, becoming “oh-neh”, for example. Selin herself does not really seem to realise that teaching requires effort on her part, so while she is critical of her co-teacher she gets nowhere with her own students – “Papel iss blonk”, one of them says, for “the paper is white”. Failure, but human failure, everywhere.

These failures mean that Ivan and Selin do not connect in the way they should, or could, and create joint meanings together. They leave things unsaid, or said in a distorted manner. In this they are like teenagers, however, rather than people seriously struggling with a higher-order problem about the possibility of meaning transference. We might say that Batuman wants to make a point about culture here, and its relationship to this connection-building among people. Hungary and America (or Turkey) are different! Look, Ivan hasn’t read Walden. Again, the text raises this potential problem only to refute itself. The Hungarians and Turks can bond, we are told, over the shared indignities of the collapse of empire – “Trianon! Touché!” one of the Hungarians says. Even the legendarily strange Hungarian language is demystified by Batuman stressing the similarities and loanwords common to it and Turkish.

It is perhaps wrong to disparage a book called The Idiot for having an idiot at its centre or suggesting that the ideas she encounters are really less important than her own failures. (Would this not mean that writing a novel called “A bad book” would always be good, unless it were excellent?) Yet it’s wrong to dismiss how corrosive the idea of human failure can be when it becomes central. A lot of Russian novels – and Batuman loves Russian novels enough to have written a whole book on them – centre on the gap between the idea and the reality of human practices. Raskolnikov’s theory of murder, and the reality of a bloodied axe, for example. But there’s an important distinction to be made between this and what The Idiot does. Raskolnikov or Bazarov discover that human failings cause issues for their philosophies. Selin has no philosophy to be challenged, so ideas cannot be central to the work, no matter what other reviewers on the cover might say.

Perhaps we can rephrase this in terms of the ideas and their potential for realisation. Communication is possible. Sometimes it’s hard, but that’s allowed. The theories on it are developed and probably, to a certain extent, the result of real thought and experimentation. Utopias, as far as we can make out, are not possible. The ideas fail because they imagine an incorrect view of human nature. Communication eludes Selin not because the theories are wrong, but because she is naïve, childish, and doesn’t really put any effort in. One approach becomes universal because it’s about all of our failings, while the other is about an individual’s failings which she will probably sort out once she has grown up a little.  

I have gone quite far from what I actually thought is the most interesting thing in this book – its use of section breaks. While Ivan and Selin’s not-relationship is the central story of the book, the bulk of it is taken up with Selin’s day-to-day experiences of being a new student in a big university. When I was about sixteen and thought I could teach myself writing through an entirely formulaic approach, I read in various places that my sections could never be shorter than 1’500 words and should always include some kind of conflict. This number has stuck with me even as it has never helped me much with my own writing. With The Idiot, Batuman doesn’t follow this rule either. Many of its sections are impressionistic and under a page in length. They accumulate, creating a sense of Selin’s experience of Harvard. They are snatches of conversations, or things spotted from a window. They are not, really, meaningful – even within a mesh of novelistic themes and meanings. But they are the brocade out of which the novel as a whole is built.

What is mildly interesting here is the way that Batuman builds meaning into this use of length and brevity. On the one hand, this is most obvious in the way that once the not-romance gets going, the sections with Ivan are considerably longer than the sections without him. It’s a quite direct way of putting the disorganised meaninglessness of the earlier sections into perspective by showing the paucity of their development quite literally on the page. On the other, and more thematically curious, is the way that this relates to Selin’s friendship with Svetlana. There is a moment when Svetlana reveals that she used to be bulimic and the narrative cannot contend with this fact, so the section just ends. It’s not presented as something deeply revealing from Svetlana within context, but Selin’s lack of reaction is another indication about the meaning-problem of the novel. Selin is yet again too immature, too naïve, to appreciate what her friend has told her. It’s not relevant to her own story.

If there’s something close to an epiphany to cap The Idiot, it’s the discovery by Selin that she is not the centre of the world, only of her world. This little bulimia mention is one example, as are the countless new people that she meets in Hungary: “I also felt that these superabundant personages weren’t irrelevant at all, but somehow the opposite, and that when Ivan had told me to make friends with the other kids, he had been telling me something important about the world, about how the fateful character in your life wasn’t the one who buried you in a rock, but the one who led you out to more people.”

I can be charitable and say that the novel begins with a meaningless mass of impressions, grows more formally clear at its centre with Ivan, then ends up with a return to those same disconnected impressions. Only this time, Selin has a new consciousness of what they mean through her slightly-increased maturity. She has a sense that even if they are disconnected and non-narrativised to herself, they may be formed and clear in others’ worlds. Indeed, perhaps that’s one hidden message of all the teaching in the novel – that a teacher, like Selin herself, can have an impact on her students far greater than she herself would ever know.

Anyway, it was a reasonably funny, easy-to-read, work of contemporary fiction. Now I can go back to the dead.